Do you NOT partake of the chalice? If so, why not?

[Melchior]

I have seen no one claiming it is wrong to offer both kinds. I have seen reasons why some choose only one species. I have yet to see evidence one is obligated to receive both? In fact, the Church tells us one is sufficient. What I wonder is why some seem to want to place an obligation where none exists?

I would certainly not obligate anyone, but a couple of the arguments made seemed to carry a bit of contempt in the other direction. I also think that a fuller sign is…a fuller sign.

I hope they wash their hands and the risk of transmission is probably less than with the cup.
That seems almost bordering superstition. It is not magic.

It’s faith. I respect it a great deal. The idea goes like this: God gives us this great supernatural gift we trust Him to protect us in receiving it. It is not more superstitious than saying the Eucharist confers grace is it?

That is too broad a statement. It does not kill all germs and certainly not in the concentration we speak of.

The early church was not concerned, nor was Jesus when He instituted it. Plus, what it the priest touches someone tongue?

 

[tee_eff_em]

I have no problem with people receiving in only one kind. I do have a problem with people having a problem with those who receive in both kinds.

On those points we agree. And for my part, I’ll add: I similarly have a problem with people who have a problem with those who choose to receive – for whatever reason – under only one species. (*“Germophobes”: Have you no faith? *-- Bah!)

tee

 

[valient_Lucy]

I have no problem with people receiving in only one kind. I do have a problem with people having a problem with those who receive in both kinds.

I agree with that, and I think we all should.

 

[LilyM]

It’s faith. I respect it a great deal. The idea goes like this: God gives us this great supernatural gift we trust Him to protect us in receiving it. It is not more superstitious than saying the Eucharist confers grace is it?

Saying that it confers spiritual grace is fine.

Saying that it confers some mystical protection against physical illness? Absolutely that’s superstition.

Jesus himself wasn’t immune from physical illness, suffering and death (like us in all ways but sin), why should we expect to be?

 

[mnowlin1]

I do not receive from the chalice. I am perfectly comfortable receiving Jesus in the host that I take from consecrated hands only. I have had issues with my son who grimaces when he takes the Precious Blood and with others who insist on receiving “the wine”. IMHO, I would prefer that if necesary that the Precious Blood is distributed by intinction. In my experience there are never less than 8 or 10 EMHC’s on the altar and quite honestly it seems terribly excessive. Truth be told is that if the Holy Father sees fit to allow laity to recieve the cup then I am OK with it…but as average catholics we should insist that our Priests offer appropriate catechism to avoid undue disrespect to Jesus.

 

[zjl56]

Does anyone know how common it is to catch an illness based purely on skin contact(giving peace to others), as compared to liquid exchange?
It seems that this is just a risk we might just have to accept, infections can come from any sort of contact. Though everyone should move with prudence when they can.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Germophobes: If it ever was conclusively proven that one could receive more germs by taking the Body instead of the Blood would you then change to receiving only by the chalice?

Do more people choose to receive the Body only because of fear of germs or because they think that receiving only the Body is more pre-Vatican II and more Traditional Catholic?

I’ve never seen anyone receive Only by the chalice. Is it OK to do that?

Do most germophobes receive directly on the tongue or in the hand?

Is intinction OK for die hard germophobes?

 

[anamchara]

I receive from both and I don’t have a problem with someone who does not want to. We recieved by Intinction in the Protestant Church and growing up we always had both so for me it’s the only way I know.

 

[LilyM]

Germophobes: If it ever was conclusively proven that one could receive more germs by taking the Body instead of the Blood would you then change to receiving only by the chalice?

Do more people choose to receive the Body only because of fear of germs or because they think that receiving only the Body is more pre-Vatican II and more Traditional Catholic?

I’ve never seen anyone receive Only by the chalice. Is it OK to do that?

Do most germophobes receive directly on the tongue or in the hand?

Is intinction OK for die hard germophobes?

Well, my mother has personally gotten sick from taking the chalice, I don’t know of anyone who has gotten sick simply from the host. Unless someone comes up with better empirical evidence than that, then I don’t need to rethink. If they do, then I may.

And there are issues besides germs too - alcoholics or recovering alcoholics as well as people with certain illnesses should avoid all alcohol.

And yes, it’s fine to receive only from the chalice. I believe some people with celiac disease (an intolerance to wheat products) do so.

 

[anamchara]

Germophobes: If it ever was conclusively proven that one could receive more germs by taking the Body instead of the Blood would you then change to receiving only by the chalice?

Do more people choose to receive the Body only because of fear of germs or because they think that receiving only the Body is more pre-Vatican II and more Traditional Catholic?

I’ve never seen anyone receive Only by the chalice. Is it OK to do that?

Do most germophobes receive directly on the tongue or in the hand?

Is intinction OK for die hard germophobes?

dude, you seriously need to dial it back with the germophobe posts, it’s actually becoming rather silly.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I think the whole germ reason for not receiving from the cup is silly.

I really do believe that some people think they’re more Catholic when they receive only one kind.

I don’t have a problem with people who only want to receive one kind–I only have a problem with the real reason that some want to receive only one kind.

And that for many has nothing to do with germs–it has everything to do with Catholic Phariseeistic neo traditionalism.

If that isn’t the real reason why you may only want to receive only one kind then just know that I am not talking about you.

It’s kind of akin to the receiving on the tongue versus receiving in the hand argument.

Now I think that receiving on the tongue is a better sign but I don’t condem people who want to receive in the hand because the early church did it that way.

Of course I am not wedded to worshipping at the altar of pre-Vatican II traditionalism either.

Peope who are worshiping at that altar I would call Phariseeistic neo Traditionalists.

And there’s nothing wrong with traditionalism and there’s nothing wrong with people who think that the way the church did things in the past was a good thing.

It only becomes wrong when that mindset is based on Phariseeism versus charity.

Phariseesim values the Form over the spirit behind the form.

That’s why a person could be totally in favor of TLM out of a love for the spirit behind that form or they could value the form over the spirit behind the form.

So I guess what I’m getting at is if someone was afraid of germs that could be OK if one was afraid out of a sense of charity for their body which is the temple of the Holy Spirit.

It would also be OK if one thought that taking only one kind was a good thing because the Catholic Church had always taught that only one kind was necessary and by taking one kind that one was showing respect for the Catholic church’s teachings over the centuries.

What I’m getting at though is there is such a thing a Phariseeistic neo Traditional Catholicism and that some people who partake of only one kind are guilty of that.

My question for everyone out there is this: if you’re not guilty of that–and I think that most Catholics aren’t–is it possible that some are and that such a thing exists?

Remember I’m not talking about Catholic Traditionalism which is OK or people who like some things about the Eucharist or Mass that were pre-Vatican II.

I’m only talking about Catholics who would worship form over the spirit behind the form.

Do such Catholics exist?

 

[RB2]

Hey Jerry-Jett,

in this thread you seem to be playing devils advocate.
You know its real easy to play devils advocate when the purpose is merely to annoy. Much harder when the goal is to attain knowledge and understanding.
All your posts in this thread are designed to annoy.

That being said any problems you have with understanding others and wrapping your head around
other people trying to avoid colds/flu’s,etc and/or washing their hands in general for the same purpose
IS REALLY YOUR PROBLEM!

There are enough resources out there to guide you and others into proper Catholic teaching, so if its about Catholic teaching I advise you to bone up on your reading and quit playing this long drawn out
“being annoying” game that you are playing.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

Folks:

These two references may be of help to the discussion.

catholic.com/newsletters/kke_070116.asp
cathnews.com/news/702/104.php

Please put on your best manners and continue the thread in a spirit of common courtesy and civility towards your fellow posters. It is NOT a requirement that in order to enforce any one POV, sarcasm or the mocking of others needs to be included in posts. Sometimes folks just have to agree to disagree…what IS important is that the discussion be held with respect and charity toward all who enter it.

 

[fix]

Folks:

These two references may be of help to the discussion.

catholic.com/newsletters/kke_070116.asp
cathnews.com/news/702/104.php

Please put on your best manners and continue the thread in a spirit of common courtesy and civility towards your fellow posters. It is NOT a requirement that in order to enforce any one POV, sarcasm or the mocking of others needs to be included in posts. Sometimes folks just have to agree to disagree…what IS important is that the discussion be held with respect and charity toward all who enter it.

Many thanks for those links. After reading the first one I realized I never considered what the priest is asked to do in drinking the cup after so many others have drunk from it. Perhaps that is another type of sacrifice for these holy priests.

 

[JButky]

Because that is how Christ instituted the Sacrament. This seems unbelievable to me, it really does. The common practice for the early church and for centuries was both species. There can be no logical argument that receiving the Body and Precious Blood is not a fuller sign. While both species are fully Christ, but have unique symbolism and that symbolism is never so meaningful as when it is participated in.

Christ instituted the Eucharist at the Institution of the Mass and Priesthood. That is what Holy Thursday is all about. It’s not about what forms or how many forms we receive Him as. The Mass is the sign…not our reception demonstrating somehow a fuller reception of fuller sign…

Whether or not some one receives the Eucharist in two forms is not the issue. That you receive, being properly disposed and prepared is.

The Church teaches that the fullness of the Eucharist is available in two forms. One needs not receive both forms to receive the fullness of the Eucharist. One or the other is sufficient.

The Institution of the Eucharist is important as the Sacrifice of the Mass. One could not have a valid Mass without both forms made present on the Altar and the Priest receiving. (can you imagine a Mass without consecrating the wine???) As for us…when you receive the Eucharist under the appearance of either bread, or wine or both, you have received the fullness of the Lord…

I personally do not receive from the Chalice and yet I have received both the body and blood of our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament. However, that would not happen without the priesthood and the Mass where the theological significance of presenting both on the Altar is required.

Joe B

 

[cheddarsox]

I am confused.

If it is understood that Jesus meant to literally eat his body and drink his blood, and that the bread and wine are literally his body and blood. Why is the part about eating and drinking not understood to be literally followed.

Even if the entirety of Christ exists in either species, Christ (knowing this) still instructed us to eat AND drink. Those were his words, and certainly he understood the transubstantiation.

And, is receiving the literal body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ not worth risking illness or even death?

Is following the direct command of Christ worth that risk or not?

I am not trying to pick a fight, but to understand why it is OK to not do as Christ commanded in this area.

 

[Brendan]

I am confused.

If it is understood that Jesus meant to literally eat his body and drink his blood, and that the bread and wine are literally his body and blood. Why is the part about eating and drinking not understood to be literally followed.

Even if the entirety of Christ exists in either species, Christ (knowing this) still instructed us to eat AND drink. Those were his words, and certainly he understood the transubstantiation.

You are correct, and when we recieve either species, we both EAT and DRINK.

We have to. In the chalice we recieve the Flesh of our Lord. Do you drink flesh? No, of course not. So how is the Flesh of our Lord consumed when we recieve the chalice. By eating it of course.

Or mouths might not react to eating this way as it would ordinary food, but physical reactions do not define what we are consuming; no more so that the physical reactions of our eyes, fingers or nose define the contents of the chalice.

So yes, when our mouths ‘drink’ from the chalice, we EAT the Body of Our Lord, just as literally as it is the Real Presence.

 

[tee_eff_em]

If it is understood that Jesus meant to literally eat his body and drink his blood, and that the bread and wine are literally his body and blood. Why is the part about eating and drinking not understood to be literally followed.

I would be careful using the word “literally” wrt the Real Presence.

But if you want to say that each of the sacred species is “literally” his body and blood, then I do not think you can challenge anyone who says that consuming either is “literally” “eating” and “drinking”.

Also not trying to pick a fight, but I do believe “literally” is a dangerous word to use.

:twocents:
tee

 

[fix]

And, is receiving the literal body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ not worth risking illness or even death?

Is following the direct command of Christ worth that risk or not?

I am not trying to pick a fight, but to understand why it is OK to not do as Christ commanded in this area.

What about folks with coeliac disease? Must they consume the host even if it will eventually cause serious physical harm? The problem with all the arguments I see here is they leave out the authority of the Church to regulate the sacraments.

 

[JButky]

I am confused.

If it is understood that Jesus meant to literally eat his body and drink his blood, and that the bread and wine are literally his body and blood.

It is understood that the bread becomes his body and blood and the wine becomes his body and blood. It is why the sacraments are mysteries. You can’t understand exactly how they work. When you receive either you have fulfilled His commandment to eat and drink.

I pointed this out in the context of the Mass in my previous post to try and make that distinction a bit more clear.

In other words, you are not required to drink of the cup, the priest is, as part of the Mass offering though, fulfilling the command at the Last Supper. The Mass is offered in Remembrance of Him. We then partake of the Mass in the Eucharist and either form of bread or wine receives fully the body and blood BECAUSE of the action of the priest. Only one form is necessary to receive the body and blood. The Church allows both forms now, but the command of our Lord is already fulfilled by virtue of the Mass itself through the priest. It is not fulfilled through us receiving both forms. Without a priest, you have nothing…We are the beneficiaries.

I think a lot of the confusion is in the misunderstanding of roles proper to the priesthood and those of the laity. The Laity are not priests for this purpose.

Joe B